Judgments of learning: Evidence for a two-stage process

Abstract

The question addressed in this article is this: How do people make judgments of learning? Judgments of learning (JOLs) are assessments that people make about how well they have learned particular information-that is, predictions about how likely they will be to remember a target item when later given a cue. These assessments are then, presumably, used to control further study (Benjamin, Bjork, & Schwartz, 1998;Dunlosky & Hertzog, 1998;Mazzoni, Cornoldi, & Marchitelli, 1990;Metcalfe, 2002;Metcalfe & Kornell, 2003;Nelson & Dunlosky, 1991;Nelson, Dunlosky, Graf, & Narens, 1994;Nelson & Narens, 1990Son, 2004;Son & Metcalfe, 2000). For example, Nelson and Dunlosky argued that "the accuracy of JOLs is critical, because if the JOLs are inaccurate, the allocation of subsequent study time will correspondingly be less than optimal" (p. 267). Because their role in learning is crucial, understanding the mechanisms underlying these judgments is central to understanding people's control of their own mental processes and for finding ways to ameliorate those processes. We will argue here that JOLs made at a delay are based on two distinct processes rather than on only the single retrieval process that previous researchers have emphasized. If so, then understanding both of those processes, and the pitfalls therein, may be pivotal to improving people's performance. In this article, we provide data that challenge the assumption that delayed JOLs are made only by an assessment of retrieval goodness or fluency. We argue and provide evidence that JOLs, like other metacognitive judgments, instead may involve two distinct stages: (1) a quick preretrieval stage based, perhaps, on cue familiarity, which determines whether or not the second stage-retrieval-will occur, and (2) a later stage in which the judgments are based on an assessment of the goodness and/or fluency of retrieval or on other aspects of the target that can become apparent once retrieval has been attempted.In the typical delayed-JOL paradigm that we investigated, participants studied cue-target pairs. Following study, they were presented with only the cue and were asked to judge how confident they were that they would be able to remember the target when they were given the cue on a future memory test. Then, at some later time, they were given a test. The prevailing view of how such JOLs are made is that when given the cue, people try to retrieve the target and base their judgments on their perception of some of the qualities of that attempted retrieval of the target, such as how quickly, easily, or fluently it comes to mind, or on how replete the retrieved information is (Begg, Duft, Lalonde, Melnick, & Sanvito, 1989;Benjamin et al., 1998;Dunlosky, Rawson, & McDonald, 2002;Kelley & Lindsay, 1993;Maki, 1998;Nelson & Dunlosky, 1991;Nelson & Narens, 1990;Nelson, Narens, & Dunlosky, 2004;Spellman & Bjork, 1992;. Three experiments tested the hypothesis that people make judgments of learning (JOLs) by attempting to retrieve the target first. If this were the whole story, then ...

Easily perceived, easily remembered? Perceptual interference produces a double dissociation between metamemory and memory performance

“…First, item-by-item JOLs might induce deeper, semantic encoding for all the items, overshadowing the typical effect of generation on memory (Matvey et al, 2001). Second, item-byitem JOLs might divert attention away from the items themselves toward the ratings and cause disruptions in the processing of the words themselves (Son & Metcalfe, 2005). Regardless of the correct explanation, the same empirical result is expected with the perceptual interference manipulation in the present experiment.…”

Unskilled but subjectively aware: Metacognitive monitoring ability and respective awareness in low-performing students

“…Indeed, making an SOJ might be similar to the second stage of the two-stage process discussed for delayed judgments of learning (cf. Son & Metcalfe, 2005; see also the two-process hypotheses discussed by Dunlosky et al, 2005). Our results indicate that low-performing students are not completely unaware, which should encourage researchers and practitioners to support students in providing accurate judgments.…”

Effects of intranasal methamphetamine on metacognition of agency

“…A major underlying assumption of metacognition research is that humans are able to monitor their own cognitive processes (Koriat 2002). Systematic examination of several metacognitive memory judgments, such as judgments of learning and feeling of knowing, has demonstrated that there is a high correlation between these judgments and subsequent performance on a recall task, suggesting that individuals can accurately evaluate what they know (Schwartz and Metcalfe 1994;Son and Metcalfe 2005). Recently, Metcalfe and Greene (2007) demonstrated that metacognition of agency, the ability to make judgments about one's own level of physical control, can be systematically evaluated under controlled laboratory conditions.…”